Shouldn't the picture be Castro in his military fatigues? He is almost never seen in a suit so that picture isn't a very good portrayal of him--65.25.250.220 06:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, we have to see the triumphant Líder Maximo *chuckle* This is Trey 09:01, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have been warned on User talk:This is Trey. 172 20:07, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Someone takes herself way too fuckin' seriously. J. Parker Stone 22:11, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No mention of the Pope in this article? J.P. II meeting F. C. was a big media event.

Contentious Allegations

There are several allegations that the US/CIA has engaged in biowarfare against Cuba. The sources for the allegations are Philip Agee's Covert Action Information Bulletin, which if KGB defector Vasili Mitrokin is to be believed, is actually written by the Cuban GDI and at least till 1991, the KGB. Now, there are also many allegations of Cuban involvement in Middle Eastern terrorism which do not make it into the article.

My questions are then, do these accusations stay in and why; and do we also include Cuba's involvement in Middle Eastern terrorist organizations and Cubas alleged (at least alleged by Cuban defectors) biowarfare program? TDC 04:37, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)

The "do we also" implies some relationship between the accusations, which is kind of pffft. Evaluate them separately. --chaizzilla 02:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately articles like this, or anything controversial, turn into tit for tat battles. Castro's record on human rights sucks, but he only does bad things because the US is using decent to undermine Cuba. Do we believe Philip Agee or Vasili Mitrokin ?So how, exactly, do we evaluate these charges. What specific methodology and criteria are to be used? TDC 03:39, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Grammar Issue

In this sentence -- In February 1960, Cuba signed an agreement to buy oil from the Soviet Union when the U.S.-owned refineries in Cuba refused to process the oil they said were expropriated. -- something seems off with the grammar, If I fix it I'd be making it say what I change it to, when I can see more than one way the sentence might have been meant to go. --chaizzilla 02:20, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I believe this is an attempt (not by you) to insert some Cuban POV into the article. An earlier version of the article can explain.

In February 1960, Cuba signed an agreement to buy oil from the USSR. When the U.S.-owned refineries in Cuba refused to process the oil they were expropriated, and the United States broke off diplomatic relations with the Castro government soon after.

The article as it currently exist seems to throw doubt on the fact that Cuba expropriated all American owned oil refineries when they refused to process Soviet Oil. I doubt anyone can provide a source to state anything other than Cuba expropriated US refineries, and all other foreign assets, shortly after the revolution. I will make the appropriate changes. TDC 03:26, Jan 28, 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

I have to dispute the neutrality of this article. It seems to be written by a party member.

We could be a bit more critical

Hey, viva la revolución and all that, but we could still be a little more critical of old Fidel without being lackeys of Uncle Sam, you know. Chamaeleon 02:43, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)